Is There an Alternative Method for Proving a Limit Involving e and ln?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Ln
Tomath
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that lim (x,y) → (a,0) e^(x ln y) = 0 \foralla > 0


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried looking at lim (x,y) → (a,0) x ln y seperately.
lim(x,y) → (a,0) x ln y = lim(x,y) -> (a,0) x * lim(x,y) → (a,0) ln y
= a * lim(x,y) → (a,0) ln y

Now lim(x,y) → (a,0) ln y is -∞. So we get lim(x,y) →(a,0) x ln y = -∞. Now lim z → -∞ e^z = 0.

The problem here is that we haven't discussed limits involving infinity in class and I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to use it. My question therefore is: is there any other way to show that lim (x,y) → (a,0) e^(x ln y) = 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tomath said:

Homework Statement


Show that lim (x,y) → (a,0) e^(x ln y) = 0 \foralla > 0


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried looking at lim (x,y) → (a,0) x ln y seperately.
lim(x,y) → (a,0) x ln y = lim(x,y) -> (a,0) x * lim(x,y) → (a,0) ln y
= a * lim(x,y) → (a,0) ln y

Now lim(x,y) → (a,0) ln y is -∞. So we get lim(x,y) →(a,0) x ln y = -∞. Now lim z → -∞ e^z = 0.

The problem here is that we haven't discussed limits involving infinity in class and I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to use it. My question therefore is: is there any other way to show that lim (x,y) → (a,0) e^(x ln y) = 0?

No, I think that's the right way to do it.
 
That's what I was afraid off :(. How would I prove that lim (x,y) → (a,0) e^(x ln y) = 0 and lim z → -∞ e^z = 0? I am familar with the \delta and \epsilon method but I am not sure how to include ∞ in this method.
 
Tomath said:
That's what I was afraid off :(. How would I prove that lim (x,y) → (a,0) e^(x ln y) = 0 and lim z → -∞ e^z = 0? I am familar with the \delta and \epsilon method but I am not sure how to include ∞ in this method.

lim z → -∞ e^z = 0 just means that for any ε>0 you can find a N such that e^z<ε if z<N. Try picking N=log(ε).
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top